Go back to the launch of the XBOX 360 and it was already out of date compared to PC's by time it was released, and 6 years later you're launching a system with the same capabilities?

But it doesn't have the same capabilities, it's probably better. The graphics of the Wii U's launch titles are relatively the same as the 360's current games, yes. But developers have also had 6+ years to master the Xbox's technology. It's launch titles looked bad too, compared to today's. Give the Wii U some time, and it will most likely end up looking better than the 360 and PS3.

Its such a revolutionary console that it is graphically almost up to 2006 standards. I thought the original Wii was cool but didnt buy one, I also won't be buying a Wii U.

Because graphical capabilities are the only measure of how revolutionary or innovative a console is. Because clearly the Wii wasn't innovative at all with it's motion control system that Sony/Microsoft jumped on. And clearly Microsofts Smart Glass tech isn't based off of the Wii U tablet controller.

Nintendo seems to be totally engrossed in cheap gimmicks. Motion controls are terrible imho, 3DS was lacklustre, and nothing about the Wii U makes it look like it will be any better. Maybe the motion controls have something to do with its sucess, but the number of games where I actually felt it was used well and appropriately is very, very small.

Numbers are against me as the Wii was the best selling console of this generation, but I can't work out why. I still think the best console is my trusty old PS2. The PS3 does have some things worth it, although only because it also has HD collections of alot of the old PS2 best.

"English doesn't so much borrow words from other languages as follows them into a dark alley, hits them over the head and goes through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

Because graphical capabilities are the only measure of how revolutionary or innovative a console is. Because clearly the Wii wasn't innovative at all with it's motion control system that Sony/Microsoft jumped on. And clearly Microsofts Smart Glass tech isn't based off of the Wii U tablet controller.

Clearly :P

The Wii was revolutionary, the Wii U is evolutionary. There is nothing unusual, unexpected or different with what they are doing with the Wii, and graphical capabilities are not the only measure but they certaintly are a measure, and on that scale the Wii U measures up very short.

The Wii was revolutionary, the Wii U is evolutionary. There is nothing unusual, unexpected or different with what they are doing with the Wii, and graphical capabilities are not the only measure but they certaintly are a measure, and on that scale the Wii U measures up very short.

What is "unusual, unexpected, or different" when it comes to consoles? The gamepad alone is a bit unusual and different from what we've had before.

If it's the one with the extra lcd screen to add to games (you can lay it on the floor for golf and it'll show your ball) then absolutely.

Apply blizzards model to any other subscription service,you'd be outraged:
Netflix adds no new movies for a year, you click a new movie, there's a $5 fee.
You're in an accident, click your onstar button, but there's an addition $20 fee for them to help.
You turn on your tv only to find all you get are the infomercial channels. Every other show is pay per view.
See how dumb that model is?

Nope, Wii was a major dust collector and i dont feel like paying money for a most likely shity online becuase nintendo refused to get online before this console. I also dont want to play a tablet hooked up to a console. Thanks but ill be sticking to my regular controller.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:32 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Bigbazz

The Wii was revolutionary, the Wii U is evolutionary. There is nothing unusual, unexpected or different with what they are doing with the Wii, and graphical capabilities are not the only measure but they certaintly are a measure, and on that scale the Wii U measures up very short.

It wanst revolutionary as it hasnt changed the face of gaming, untill it does its just a different thing they are doing.

Nope, Wii was a major dust collector and i dont feel like paying money for a most likely shity online becuase nintendo refused to get online before this console. I also dont want to play a tablet hooked up to a console. Thanks but ill be sticking to my regular controller.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:32 PM ----------

It wanst revolutionary as it hasnt changed the face of gaming, untill it does its just a different thing they are doing.

Well it did change the face of gaming, both Sony and Microsoft attempted to copy them in some way, the Wii was also by far the best selling of the current generation of consoles, doing something completely new, risky and out of the box, and it has shaped the future of console gaming.

Nah I hate the games released on Nintendo consoles (Mario and Zelda are good, 90% of the other games seem to be aimed at 9 year old kids), why they don't release all the major titles along with their own franchises I'll never know, they would be in a win-win situation.

Hardcore Nintendo fans would still get all the major franchises while hardcore gamers (xbox/ps3/pc players) would get their fix of big titles.

I'll skip Wii U. Tablet gaming just isn't for me. As far as motion controls I'd rather wait & see the Kinect 2. I'm not a big fan. The xbox360 controller is great for FPS&Action games. Sure there are some good brands coming to Wii U but I'd rather rent it for a night or 2 then buy something that's current gen and soon to be replaced. If MS is will launch the next Xbox at the end of 2013 then everyone and their cat will go out to catch those new games on a crazy awesome console. Honestly the next-gen engines look really great. The FF tech demo and U4 one were incredibly detailed. Hope the launch titles will be good

I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't already know this, but... you do know that the tablet is just the controller, right? You still play games on the TV.

That said, I probably won't buy it until it goes down in price or until there's a decent quantity of high-quality games.

Well yeah. I've got every single Nintendo console and portable/handheld, so I'll continue the trend. :P It's lookin' to be a good system too.

Because graphics don't make a game?

Gameplay >>>>>>> Graphics

I'd take NES over 360/PS3 any day, due to having epic games.

Gameplay is more important than graphics, but graphics are important too. A NES was decent at the time, but most games were garbage, you take your 25 year old console with a handful of "awesome games for the time" if you want, but that does not make it better. Both the XBOX 360 and PS3 have great games on them and on an average the level of quality of current games is far far beyond what it was 20 years ago.

Graphics play a massively important role in the enjoyment of games for millions, nobody is saying it is more important than gameplay, people expect both quality gameplay and graphics in modern games and they should do, and with such outdated capabilities the WII U cannot deliver in the next generation.

If I remember correctly, one of the best speed run (61 stars), with buggy shortcuts and all was made in 2h25...
And you beat it the first time you've played it under 3 hours ? With 120 stars I supose ?

If I remember correctly, one of the best speed run (61 stars), with buggy shortcuts and all was made in 2h25...
And you beat it the first time you've played it under 3 hours ? With 120 stars I supose ?

Of course he didn't. Fanboys never tell things like they actually are.